If Pat Robertson Can Go There, Why Can’t Marco Rubio?

Pat Robertson is turning heads with a 700 Club segment this week in which the televangelist apparently recommended that Christians stop trying to harmonize Genesis with mainstream paleontological and geological history:

You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.

And: “If you fight revealed science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was.”

This is akin to the argument the Christian geneticist Francis Collins has been making for years:

The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies it to an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason? [emphasis mine]

It doesn’t have to be this way. At the ripe old age of 82, it seems Pat Robertson finally understands that. What a pity it took him so long. Think of the impact he could have had if he had taken this position 20 or 30 years ago. Imagine the intellectual agony many smart young believers could have avoided if an influential evangelist like Robertson had released them from the burden of trying to prove, as Collins argues, that 2+2=5. I fear, however, that many people, not just evangelicals, will greet Robertson’s about-face as another instance of an old man going rogue, if not insane. He favors pot decriminalization! He jokes about wife-beating! He advises a man to go ahead and ditch his wife with Alzheimer’s!

There’s a sharp lead editorial in the current print edition of TAC that argues that, “Policy and elections alike are the end results of a long chain of production, much as computers and automobiles only reach consumers after their components have been manufactured and assembled by companies which, in turn, depend on other capital goods and an infrastructure of finance. Candidates and laws are finished goods …”

I suspect the analogy holds true in the case of Sen. Marco Rubio’s hedging on the question of the age of the earth. Is Rubio a young-earther? Or is he wary of offending the GOP base? It doesn’t much matter. That we even must ask the question is (to paraphrase the TAC editorial) the end result of a long chain of intellectual malpractice. We need more — many more — evangelical pastors and and theologians to “tell it like it was,” as Robertson put it. The earth-is-old-but-man-is-young casuistry of John Piper is not good enough. We need more Francis Collinses.

1. What about the old-earth creationists? If you don’t believe you are the product of entirely random chance from primordial slime to homosapiens you are burned as a heretic (see Expelled – there is no YEC there).

2. How does a belief in YEC affect anything which is properly done by government? Except there is less likelihood for eugenics, sterilization, killing off useless eaters in a humane way or such? Better a kind myth than a brutal assumption.

Well TZ politics under the new liberal hegemony (which despite its name this magazine has little interest in combating) is largely a means of signaling status. And creationism has been associated with backwoods losers so no quarter or concessions will be tolerated.

“2. How does a belief in YEC affect anything which is properly done by government? Except there is less likelihood for eugenics, sterilization, killing off useless eaters in a humane way or such? Better a kind myth than a brutal assumption.”

If someone believes in one thing that’s been scientifically disproven, they’re more likely to believe in other similarly-disproven things, and that could lead to disastrous policies. It speaks to overall worldview, and how gullible they are.

Pat Robertson is no-bodys authority, least of all the thoughtful, reasonable Christian. He is a rich man with a camera who rambles. He especially doesn’t speak for God…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
(See “predictions”)

Robertson and other creationists never believed the Ussher theory; I recall him saying in the seventies that historical Chinese records go back 10,000 years, clearly in Ussher’s own time disproving his simplistic reductionist calculating, that isn’t even mentioned anywhere in scripture.

Robertson also said the draconian drug laws of our country are highly destructive and counterproductive and that our record of having 5% of the world’s population while incarcerating 25% of the prisoners in the world is evil.

It’s always useful to paint your “opponent” as holding the most ridiculous and ourageous of views, if arguing by ridicule is what you want to do.

There is no cause so just or right, that it does not have at least some who hold ludicrous beliefs, or express them very badly and incorrectly.

“Well TZ politics under the new liberal hegemony (which despite its name this magazine has little interest in combating) is largely a means of signaling status. And creationism has been associated with backwoods losers so no quarter or concessions will be tolerated.”

This magazine isn’t interested in combating the new liberal hegemony for the same reason they aren’t advocating for greater conservation of sasquatch habitat.

Belief in a God that created the universe but not in a YEC is so uncontrovesial in the American mainstream as to be unworthy of comment.

This is not to discount “Expelled” which is an excellent film, but to point out that American society is not ruled by the dictates of liberal academics.

I am a right leaning independent. I am thirsty for a smart, sincere, real conservative who will not insult my intelligence and ask me to turn my intellect off every time he or she speaks to me. I can’t take any more equivocation and obfuscation and lies in the name of political advancement. I just can’t take it anymore. And if that is the game Rubio is going to play in the lead up to 2016, well, he is not getting my vote.

I agree with Robertson that ”young earth creationism” is mistaken. The Bible is chock-full of metaphors yet the ”six days and six nights” is a chiseled-in-stone literal?
But Pat is so ‘off the wall’ that there have been times The 700 Club/CBN have had to do the ”the views of Mr. Robertson, ect. ect.” disclaimer.
This too will be ignored as ”oh that Pat, being a goofball again”.
Which is a shame, because to many ”young earth creationism” comes off as implausible as well.

[I had a comment which may have gone to spam because of hyperlinks; here it is without the links]

Tim Keller, if I’m not mistaken, accepts an old earth, but still insists on a literal Adam and Eve

Keller accepts evolution. He does hold to a literal Adam and Eve, but not as the first human beings. Keller, in fact, has written for Collins’ forum for evangelicals who accept mainstream science, BioLogos (google Keller biologos evolution).

Interpreting Adam and Eve as literal figures of ancient Mesopotamian civilization — Genesis, after all, locates Eden using specific geographic landmarks indicating a spot near ancient Ur/modern Nasiriyah — rather than progenitors of the whole human species is a way (the way, if you ask me) of reconciling Christian orthodoxy and scientific fact.

Somewhat OT, a fascinating book discussing reading the early chapters of Genesis as historical events while still accepting science regarding the earth’s age and evolution (summary: Adam and Eve Mesopotamian figures living in a walled garden ca. 6000 BC; Noah’s flood a local event to Mesopotamia, only local livestock in the ark; Tower of Babel a zigguraut in one of the ancient cities):

So the only reason this site is far more vigorous in attacking those on its own nominal side than liberals is because of YEC. I don’t even really care about YEC. But I believe that if we are going to teach human egalitarianism in the face of Darwinian contraindication then two can play at that game. The right should have just as much right as the left to wall off its own pieties from Darwinism. To limit the prerogative of “editing” Darwin to the left is pernicious.

Robertson has lost his credibility with the people who most need to hear that message.

He also misses an opportunity to make an important case for biblical inerrancy: the order of creation in Genesis is consistent with what science has come to say happened. There’s no way anyone 4000+ years ago could have known that, unless the creator told someone to write it that way.

It makes no sense to assume that the “days” of creation are literal 24 days as measured by the sun and earth’s movement, since that pattern wasn’t set in motion until the fourth “day”.

I’m not crazy about Robertson and never have been, and I doubt, alas, that this will have much effect on the Fundamentalist crowd, but it’s good that he acknowledges this, anyway.

VikingLS: This is not to discount “Expelled” which is an excellent film….

???!!!

Noah172: [Keller] does hold to a literal Adam and Eve, but not as the first human beings….. Adam and Eve Mesopotamian figures living in a walled garden ca. 6000 BC; Noah’s flood a local event to Mesopotamia, only local livestock in the ark; Tower of Babel a zigguraut in one of the ancient cities….

I don’t necessarily oppose this, but I don’t really see the point, either. The Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that the Flood was worldwide, that the Tower of Babel was going to go all the way to heaven, etc. Thus inerrantist, Fundamentalist types would find the ideas you mention here just as unacceptable, since they veer off from a completely literal reading of the text. On the other hand, if one is not committed to a literalist understanding, it’s hard to see what one gains by insisting that there were an actual Adam and Eve (just not the first persons), a real flood (just local), etc., as opposed to seeing these stories as Jewish mythology. I think C. S. Lewis puts it very well in Miracles (footnote near the beginning of Chapter 15):

A consideration of the Old Testament miracles is beyond the scope of this book and would require many kinds of knowledge which I do not possess. My present view—which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction—would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history (as Euhemerus thought) nor diabolical illusion (as some of the Fathers thought) nor priestly lying (as the philosophers of the Enlightenment thought) but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology; but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology—the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step of the process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can ever say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the Memoirs of David’s court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end. It should be noted that on this view (a) Just as God, in becoming Man, is ‘emptied’ of His glory, so the truth, when it comes down from the ‘heaven’ of myth to the ‘earth’ of history, undergoes a certain humiliation. Hence the New Testament is, and ought to be, more prosaic, in some ways less splendid, than the Old; just as the Old Testament is and ought to be less rich in many kinds of imaginative beauty than the Pagan mythologies. (b) Just as God is none the less God by being Man, so the Myth remains Myth even when it becomes Fact. The story of Christ demands from us, and repays, not only a religious and historical but also an imaginative response. It is directed to the child, the poet, and the savage in us as well as to the conscience and the intellect. One of its functions is to break down dividing walls.

Bob, there is no “Darwinian” contraindication—or indication–of anything. You can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. All evolutionary biology or any other science does is describe the world we live in. Questions of what we should do with that knowledge are matters of ethics, which, while it can and must be informed by our knowledge is never determined by it. For example, aggression and violence are probably in large part biologically based—studies of chimps show that much. However, this does not mean that we should glorify aggression and violence (as some cultures have done) on the grounds that it’s “natural” or that “Darwinism indicates it”. That would be absurd. Likewise, egalitarianism as an ideal has nothing to do with genetics, evolution, or anything else. Science might indicate that egalitarianism might not be capable of perfect implementation (what ethical outlook ever is?), but it says nothing about whether or not egalitarianism is a worthy goal or not. That’s an ethical question, not a scientific one.

The difference with YEC is one, it makes no ethical claims (unless one counts the people who call evolution “lies from the pits of hell”); and two, YEC claims go against demonstrable facts. Neither statements like “Egalitarianism is a worthy goal” or “Egalitarianism is a stupid delusion” are facts; they are statements of ethical opinion, and thus not falsifiable (once more, in distinction to statements like “Egalitarianism can/cannot/can partially be implemented”, which are falsifiable). “The world is no more than about 6000 years old” is a falsifiable statement, and it has been falsified. The issue with YEC is nothing at all like the pseudo-issue of evolutionary-based ethics; not one bit similar.

Actually Robertson has spoken up for modern science in the past. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and other religious right leaders have as well. The problem is that Answers in Genesis and other YEC ministries have done a better job marketing their views to the local churches.

The short response to your remarks about my 3:13 comment is that I urge you to read the Keller essay and the Fischer book which I referenced; neither is taxing in its length. They explain their views better than I can summarize here.

Somewhat longer, I’ll address some of what you write with some tidbits derived from Fischer:

Ancient Hebrew has a fraction of the vocabulary of modern English. Many biblical Hebrew terms, especially basic ones, could convey a multitude of nuances expressed in modern English by separate words. One of the weaknesses of hyperliteralism, which I think that you may be unwittingly echoing, is assuming that the precision apparently present in a given English translated passage is necessarily present in the Hebrew original.

The name Adam — Hebrew aleph-daleth-mim — can be translated into modern English as person, man, individual, human being, or more broadly humanity or mankind. This can cause some ambiguity in the early chapters of Genesis, in which both mankind generally and Adam specifically are discussed using the same word. Moreover, there are some curious OT passages in which adam is placed alongside, perhaps even contrasted to, the other common Hebrew word for man (or husband), aish (aleph-yod-shin): Psalm 8:4 reads, “What is man [aish] that you are mindful of him, the son of man [adam,] that you care for him?”; Jeremiah 50:40 reads, “‘…as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah along with their neighboring towns,’ declares the Lord, ‘so no man [aish] will live there; no son of man [adam,] will dwell in it.” Fischer posits (with further detail) that the Word is drawing a distinction between the Semitic/Israelite/Jewish descendants of the literal, but not first human, Mesopotamian Adam, and the (non-Israelite) rest of humanity (both products of evolution).

Or take the Hebrew eretz, which can be translated in modern English as country, land, ground, earth, territory, soil, or even, in compounds, the prefix geo-. That is a lot of nuance packed into one little aleph-resh-tzaddi trilateral. Whereas a modern English-speaker sees the word earth (or capital-E Earth) in chapter 7 of Genesis (the flood story) and assumes a meaning of the entire planet, an equally valid translation of eretz as land could then be interpreted as merely the region around where Noah lived (the Tigris-Euphrates valley in modern southern Iraq).

While the Lewis passage you quote is cogent and thought-provoking (I have never read any Lewis, so I can’t respond fully to his line of argument), I am uncomfortable with this oh-so-delicate line-drawing between a “prosaic,” “factual” NT and a “mythological” OT. I believe that God, among his innumberable attributes, is a reasonable God (“Come let us reason together…”). He works through history, whether natural or recorded human, largely by means of “ordinary” miracles, such as evolution, or the triumph of heroic souls over seemingly unendurable persecution (e.g. long-imprisoned Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand), versus what we normally think of as miracles (though God certainly uses these when he so chooses, as in the Resurrection). What can’t God have miraculously led the Hebrews over a shallow point in the “sea of reeds” (yam suph) — what the Bible literally says in Exodus, not the “Red Sea,” possibly/likely indicating a marshy lake or inlet near what is now the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez — rather than the (also miraculous) scene dramatized in DeMille’s The Ten Commandments in which the Hebrews march through walls of seawater hundreds of feet high?

To me, the choice between a Bible (or just the OT) full of factually untethered mythology worthy of, ahem, Life of Pi, and the misguided hyperliteralism that leads to the intellectual cul-de-sac of (for lack of a better term) fundamentalism, seems depressingly similar to the choice between the Obama Democrats and the Bush Republicans.

It’s very hard to see this admission by Robertson as being very significant. It has, after all, been 150 years or so since Darwinism gave an explanation for all those dinosaur fossils, so giving some example of the tenacity of the Biblical Fundies in believing in some literal Biblical version of events in the face of undeniable facts.

And then there is what seems to me the incredibly more difficult hurdle for them to accept the vastly more significant idea of evolution as accounting for humankind.

True, one can accept same and still believe in God as having been the first mover of the whole shebang, but there’s so many implications of it, and questions that opens, with all the possible answers seeming so strained, that I don’t think the Fundies can ever really go there given the sort of religion they understand.

Indeed, it seems to me very tough for any conventional religion to go there given its implication of, at best, a less-than-personal God and potential savior. And thus not only do I think we won’t see the Fundies backing off much farther than Pat Robertson has, but because of the more intellectually sensitive nature of them I think we’ll continue to see the non-Fundie religions losing their adherents and strength as evolution continues to be ever more widely understood and internalized.

I believe in Old Earth Creationism: Day-Age Theory and reject evolutionary creationism. I believe that Dr. Robertson stands on the same ground as I do. I do not believe that Dinosaurs and human beings lived together. Dinos were extinct long before the first humans were created creation-ex-nihilo.